Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Andreas Laupacis

Publications and source records attributed to Andreas Laupacis.

78 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
PubMed1999

The effects of an 'explicit' values clarification exercise in a woman's decision aid regarding postmenopausal hormone therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incremental effect of a graphic weigh-scale values clarification exercise to explicitly consider the personal importance of the benefits versus the risks in a woman's decision aid regarding postmenopausal hormone therapy. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. Intervention Decision aid including information on options, benefits and risks, and their probabilities either followed by: (1) a graphic weigh-scale values clarification exercise to explicitly consider the personal importance of each benefit and risk; or (2) a summary of the main benefits and risks to implicitly consider benefits versus the risks. SAMPLE: Two-hundred and one women aged 50-69 years from Ottawa, Canada, who had never used hormone therapy. OUTCOME: Perceived clarity of values, a sub-scale of the decisional conflict scale; congruence between personal values of benefits and risks (measured on 0-10 importance rating scale) and choices (accept, decline, unsure regarding preventive hormone therapy [HRT]) using discriminant function analysis. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between interventions in perceived clarity of values and overall congruence between values and choices. Amongst those choosing HRT, there was a trend in those exposed to the graphic weigh-scale exercise to have better congruence between values and choices compared to implicit values clarification (P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: The use of the graphic weigh-scale exercise in a decision aid conveys no overall short-term benefit. Further study is needed to specifically determine effects in those changing the status quo and on the quality of patient-practitioner communication and persistence with decisions.

Journal Article↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Preference-based antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation: implications for clinical decision making.

BACKGROUND: Patient preferences and expert-generated clinical practice guidelines regarding treatment decisions may not be identical. The authors compared the thresholds for antithrombotic treatment from studies that determined or modeled the treatment preferences of patients with atrial fibrillation with recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: Methods included MEDLINE identification, systematic review, and pooling with some reanalysis of primary data from relevant studies. RESULTS: Eight pertinent studies, including 890 patients, were identified. These studies used 3 methods (decision analysis, probability tradeoff, and decision aids) to determine or model patient preferences. All methods highlighted that the threshold above which warfarin was preferred over aspirin was highly variable. In 6 of 8 studies, patient preferences indicated that fewer patients would take warfarin compared to the recommendations of the guidelines. In general, at a stroke rate of 1% with aspirin, half of the participants would prefer warfarin, and at a rate of 2% with aspirin, two thirds would prefer warfarin. In 3 studies, warfarin must provide at least a 0.9% to 3.0% per year absolute reduction in stroke risk for patients to be willing to take it, corresponding to a stroke rate of 2% to 6% on aspirin. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with atrial fibrillation, treatment recommendations from clinical practice guidelines often differ from patient preferences, with substantial heterogeneity in their individual preferences. Since patient preferences can have a substantial impact on the clinical decision-making process, acknowledgment of their importance should be incorporated into clinical practice guidelines. Practicing physicians need to balance the patient preferences with the treatment recommendations from clinical practice guidelines.

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Using pharmacoepidemiology to inform drug coverage policy: initial lessons from a two-province collaborative.

Prescription drug plan managers seek "real-world" evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of drugs and drug coverage policies. University-based pharmacoepidemiologists with access to administrative health data can help meet these information needs and, by collaborating with other health plans, exploit variations in plan policy. Canada, with its universal health insurance, public drug benefit plans, and population-based linked health care databases, is an ideal setting for such research. Here we describe our initial experience in collaborating with researchers and drug plan managers in British Columbia and Ontario.

British Columbia↗